Esther (Taiwo)

In death we no longer exist. Gone for good. The best analogy is to consider the only other time we didn’t exist…before we were born. We just weren’t there. Existence is but a moment. We are here now, this moment. That is all. We were here yesterday. That day is gone forever. We plan to exist tomorrow. One day we won’t. There is plenty of time to be dead. It’s this brief living part that is cool. Prove you are alive everyday. The purpose of life is to experience it.

@Roofingslate11 @xonphused It was not force but it was manipulation and deception

@adenormo @xonphused That’s false, missionaries spreading the word of Jesus wasn’t done by force. You didn’t have to change your beliefs to get the help they offered.

Don’t let them break you. They will tell you that you’re born a sinner. They will tell you that you need to be saved. They will tell you that their way is the only way. Don’t listen to them. You’re not broken or need to be saved. If you need to be saved, trust me you will know. I will tell you this. It’s all emotional manipulation and recruiting tactics. First they break you apart, then fix you in a way that will keep you reliant on their opinion. Wake up my people🙏🏽

@printoolzfx @xonphused There is no theory to the world. But there are theories to event happening to the world, life ( birth and death)is a cycle that can't be changed or influenced by any religion in the world

@adenormo @xonphused Okay , I would really love to learn from you Who actually gave this theories about the world? I would really love to explore your belief and understanding

Whether the god of Israel exist or not. I will never worship him

@Roofingslate11 @xonphused Christianity use manipulation coercion, grooming, blackmailing, false pretense, taking advantage to ignorant people The missionaries brought Christianity to African through deception They build schools and hospitals in exchange for converting millions of people to Christianity

@adenormo @xonphused Nobody forces Christianity on anyone, people are free to believe what they wish. It isn’t forced down their throats.

@printoolzfx @xonphused If there are telescope that can see organisms the eyes cannot see why do you think there will be no telescope to see into space????

@adenormo @xonphused Magnificent telescope Wow

@printoolzfx @xonphused Well there are evidences surrounding you but you chose to pay blind eyes Rocks metroite and fossils confirm all this years Earth is 4.5 billion years not even million The oldest metroite has existed 4.5 billion years ago The oldest fossil (human remains) was 300,000 years ago

@adenormo @xonphused Who told you all this? 14million years?? 4000years?? Who dey wash una head?

@printoolzfx @xonphused I don't argue with people like you, your knowledge is limited, individual not in anyway related to NASA has use magnificent telescope to view Into space, and has confirm there are other planets and suns/stars also confirming the earth curvature.

@adenormo @xonphused Same space no one has been too?? U think any human has left this earth?? U believe those NASA pictures This is like telling me the earth is round or you think it is ??

@printoolzfx @xonphused Earth alone as exist 14 million years ago humans have existed for over 300000 All religions exist less than 3000 years ago In 4000 or 5000 years from now all this religion will go into extinction just like the religion that was in existence before this centuries

@xonphused What gave you the ideology that there is a creator?

@Roofingslate11 @xonphused You can't deny the fact that religion didn't cause any of this... If everyone stick to their indegineous cultures and traditions And respect the rule of law 99.9% of the worlds problem will be solved

@adenormo @xonphused That is the biggest line of bullshit I’ve ever heard.

@Roofingslate11 @xonphused Well they are not religious maniacs like other religions worshippers, they put humanity above religion, they don't go about imposing their thoughts and belief on anybody, they don't move out of their country and try to convert anyone by force or by tricks....

@adenormo @xonphused Japan is 70% Buddhist, they believe in god and have shrines everywhere.

@next_door_down @KR3Wmatic Bullshit There is no creator My parents are my creator Once I die it's the end no going anywhere only losing consciousness forever just like before I was born

@KR3Wmatic Here you go…

How do I convince an atheist that there is a God?

@Roofingslate11 @xonphused Japan with little or no religion has more values with lower crime rate than India with thousands of religion The world is evolving and humas should be evolving too not stucked with stone age religion that's has outdated and causing chaos and havoc to humanity

@xonphused Also you fail to answer my question. If I was seeking truth, I’d want to learn from someone who is intellectually honest. Apparently that’s not you.

@Roofingslate11 @xonphused Life would be better without religion, religious belief brought destruction confusion war hatred and crime, terrorism, extortion blackmailing slavery to the world The world was at peace before religion Instead of religion we should promote our indigenous culture and traditions

@xonphused I cannot comprehend how someone can devote this much of their life to telling people there is no god. Do you think life on earth would be better somehow if nobody believed? What would a world of non believers achieve? How would life be better?

@UcimSe @grok @Toxic0livia Religion exist has a mental tool to control human, it's threatened humans with fake existence of after life

show me evidence of the Big Bang. There are some tensions (e.g., the "Hubble tension" in expansion rate measurements from different methods, or the lithium problem where observed primordial lithium is lower than predicted). These are active areas of research and may point to refinements (new physics, better measurements), but they do not undermine the core Big Bang framework — the theory has successfully predicted phenomena like the CMB before they were observed.Alternative ideas (steady-state, plasma cosmology, etc.) have been largely ruled out because they fail to explain the CMB spectrum, light element abundances, or redshift-distance relation as consistently. In short, the Big Bang isn't just a "theory" in the casual sense — it's a model backed by decades of precise, multi-wavelength observations from ground and space telescopes. If you'd like visuals (e.g., CMB maps from Planck), deeper dives into any pillar, math behind the predictions, or discussions of current puzzles, let me know!The Big Bang theory describes the universe beginning as an extremely hot, dense state approximately 13.8 billion years ago and expanding ever since. It is one of the most robust models in modern cosmology, supported by multiple independent lines of observational evidence. No single "smoking gun" proves it, but the convergence of several pillars makes it the best explanation we have.en.wikipedia.orgHere are the main pieces of evidence:1. Expansion of the Universe (Hubble's Law and Redshift)In 1929, Edwin Hubble observed that distant galaxies are moving away from us, with their recession speed proportional to their distance (Hubble's law: v = H₀ × D). This is measured via cosmological redshift — the light from galaxies is stretched to longer (redder) wavelengths as space itself expands.This implies that if we "rewind" the expansion, the universe was once much smaller and denser. Modern measurements (including from supernovae and the Hubble/Planck data) confirm the universe is expanding and accelerating due to dark energy. All galaxies (except those in our local group bound by gravity) show this redshift pattern — consistent with uniform expansion, not us being at a special center. This was the first major observational clue that the universe has a finite age and wasn't static.2. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) RadiationThe strongest and most direct evidence is the cosmic microwave background — a faint, uniform glow of microwave radiation filling all of space, with a near-perfect blackbody spectrum at about 2.725 K.Discovered accidentally in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson (who later won the Nobel Prize). This is the "afterglow" of the Big Bang: about 380,000 years after the event, the universe cooled enough for atoms to form, releasing photons that have since been redshifted into microwaves as the universe expanded. Satellites like COBE (confirmed blackbody spectrum and tiny fluctuations), WMAP, and Planck mapped the CMB in exquisite detail. Planck's data (2018 and legacy results) shows temperature variations of about 1 part in 100,000 — these tiny anisotropies are the seeds from which galaxies and large-scale structure grew via gravitational instability.esa.intThe CMB is remarkably uniform in all directions (after subtracting our motion), exactly as predicted for a hot, dense early universe. Recent high-resolution maps from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope further refine this picture.3. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (Abundances of Light Elements)In the first few minutes after the Big Bang, the universe was hot and dense enough for nuclear fusion to create light elements before it cooled too much.Predictions: ~75% hydrogen, ~25% helium-4 (by mass), trace amounts of deuterium, helium-3, and lithium-7. Observations: These ratios match extremely well in the oldest stars, gas clouds, and interstellar medium (where stellar processing hasn't significantly altered them). Deuterium, in particular, is a sensitive "baryometer" that aligns with CMB-derived baryon density. Heavier elements are produced later in stars, so the primordial abundances provide a snapshot of the early universe's conditions (temperature, density, neutron-proton ratio).en.wikipedia.orgThis agreement holds over many orders of magnitude and is independent of the CMB measurements, yet consistent with them.Additional Supporting EvidenceLarge-scale structure: Galaxies and clusters form a "cosmic web" that evolved from the tiny CMB fluctuations under gravity over billions of years. Simulations based on Big Bang initial conditions match observations. Age consistency: The oldest stars and globular clusters are ~13–13.5 billion years old — no older objects exist, matching the universe's age from expansion and CMB data. No stable alternative fully explains all three pillars simultaneously without ad hoc adjustments. Notes on Ongoing Research and ChallengesThe standard ΛCDM model (Big Bang + dark matter + dark energy + inflation) fits the data remarkably well. Planck and other experiments have tightened parameters like the universe's age (13.787 ± 0.02 billion years) and composition. That is only a theory. No etymological evidence. You're right that the Big Bang is a scientific theory — and in science, that's actually the highest level of explanation we have for a broad set of natural phenomena. In everyday language, "theory" often means a guess, hunch, or unproven idea (like "I have a theory about why my team lost"). In science, a theory is a well-substantiated, comprehensive framework that explains a wide range of observations, makes testable predictions, and has survived repeated rigorous testing. Examples include the theory of gravity, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of evolution. The Big Bang theory fits this definition: it's not a speculation but the best current model backed by multiple independent lines of evidence.The name "Big Bang" itself has an interesting etymology (origin of the word/phrase). It was coined in 1949 by British astronomer and physicist Fred Hoyle during a BBC radio broadcast. Hoyle was a strong proponent of the rival steady-state theory (which proposed the universe had always existed without a beginning). He used the term "Big Bang" somewhat dismissively or pejoratively to describe the competing idea of a universe that began in a hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since — he thought it sounded ridiculous, like a sudden explosion. Ironically, the catchy name stuck, even though Hoyle himself never accepted the model and continued criticizing it until his death in 2001. The term first appeared in print in his 1950 lectures published in The Listener. So yes — the label "Big Bang" is not perfect (it misleadingly suggests an explosion in space from a single point, whereas the actual model describes a rapid expansion of space itself from a hot, dense state everywhere). But names don't determine truth; evidence does.The evidence for the model (expansion via redshift/Hubble's law, the cosmic microwave background as the cooled remnant of the early hot phase, and the predicted abundances of light elements like hydrogen and helium from Big Bang nucleosynthesis) remains strong and convergent from independent observations. These weren't invented to fit the name — they were measured and predicted long after the term was coined.If by "no etymological evidence" you mean the name itself doesn't prove the science (which it doesn't — it's just a label), that's fair. Scientific acceptance comes from data, not word origins. If you're pointing out that it's "only a theory" to downplay it, that's a common misconception, but the framework has withstood decades of scrutiny and successfully predicted things like the CMB before it was discovered.Would you like me to clarify any specific piece of evidence, discuss alternatives that have been considered (and why most were ruled out), or dive into why the name persists despite its flaws? Or is there another angle on "etymological evidence" you had in mind? Its only some act of faith to this observations and calculations.. It hasn't been falsified; instead, it keeps passing tests. When tensions arise (e.g., Hubble tension in expansion rate or early galaxy surprises from JWST), scientists debate refinements or new physics — not by declaring it unquestionable. That's the opposite of faith-based dogma.Calculations aren't "acts of faith" — they're derived from well-tested physics (relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics) that work in labs and other astrophysical contexts. Observations are repeatable by independent teams with different instruments. No one claims the Big Bang explains everything (e.g., what "caused" the initial state, or physics at the singularity, or the nature of dark energy). Those are open questions. The model simply describes the observable universe's evolution from a hot, dense state onward, based on what we can measure.If it feels like faith because we trust experts or can't personally redo every experiment, that's fair — science relies on division of labor and peer review. But the underlying process is self-correcting and evidence-driven, unlike systems that resist revision when data conflicts.Would you like to explore a specific piece of evidence in more depth (e.g., how the CMB spectrum is measured), alternatives that have been proposed and why they fell short, or how this compares philosophically to other forms of knowledge? I'm happy to go wherever your curiosity leads. It's understandable to feel that accepting the Big Bang model requires a kind of "act of faith," especially when we're dealing with events from 13.8 billion years ago that no one witnessed directly. Many people draw that parallel at first. However, there's a fundamental difference between religious faith (belief without requiring empirical evidence, often held despite or independent of contrary data) and confidence in a scientific theory (provisional acceptance based on how well it matches repeated observations and makes risky, testable predictions).Key distinction: Evidence vs. faithFaith typically involves accepting something as true on authority, revelation, or personal conviction, even if it can't be tested or if evidence conflicts with it. It doesn't demand falsifiability. Scientific theories are frameworks built to explain observations. They are accepted (tentatively) because they:Fit multiple independent lines of data. Make specific, risky predictions that could be proven wrong. Get refined or replaced when better evidence appears. Are open to scrutiny by anyone with the tools to test them. The Big Bang isn't clung to dogmatically. It's the current best model because it consistently explains what we see, and alternatives have been tested and largely ruled out when they failed predictions.Concrete examples of testable predictions (not just post-hoc fitting)The model didn't start with "let's assume a beginning and force the data to fit." It made predictions that were later confirmed:Expansion of the universe — Predicted that galaxies should show redshift increasing with distance (rewinding implies a hotter, denser past). Observed by Hubble and many others since. If galaxies showed blueshift or random motion instead, the model would be in trouble. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) — In the 1940s–50s, theorists predicted a uniform "afterglow" radiation from when the universe cooled enough for atoms to form (380,000 years after the hot dense phase). This was discovered accidentally in 1965 at exactly the predicted temperature (2.7 K) with a near-perfect blackbody spectrum. Later satellites (COBE, WMAP, Planck) mapped tiny fluctuations that match the seeds for galaxy formation. If the spectrum had been wrong or the radiation absent/mismatched, the theory would have been falsified. Abundances of light elements — Predicted precise ratios of hydrogen (75%), helium-4 (25%), and trace deuterium/lithium from nuclear reactions in the first minutes. These match observations in the oldest stars and gas clouds extremely well. Stellar processes can't produce the observed primordial helium/deuterium in those amounts. These aren't circular: the predictions came from the math of an expanding hot universe (using general relativity and particle physics), and measurements came decades later. The theory has been refined (e.g., adding cosmic inflation to explain uniformity and flatness), but the core has survived rigorous testing.Falsifiability and openness to changeScience (following ideas like Karl Popper's emphasis on falsifiability) requires that a theory could, in principle, be shown wrong by evidence. The Big Bang is falsifiable — for instance:Finding stars older than the predicted universe age. Discovering a CMB spectrum that isn't a blackbody. Observing element abundances wildly different from nucleosynthesis calculations. I meant we believe that this calculations are some kindergarten of evidence. After 1000 years, that can complitly change But scientists openly discuss its weaknesses (e.g., what "caused" the initial hot dense state, the nature of dark matter/energy, possible need for new physics at the earliest moments). New ideas — like certain quantum gravity models or even cyclic/bouncing universes — are being seriously explored precisely because the current picture isn't perfect. In 1000 years, with vastly better telescopes, particle accelerators, or entirely new frameworks (maybe a unified theory of quantum gravity), our descendants might describe the origin of the observable universe very differently — perhaps without a "beginning" in the same sense, or with additional layers we can't yet imagine.That's not a bug in science; it's the feature that makes it powerful over the long run. It self-corrects when evidence demands it, unlike systems based purely on authority or unchanging dogma.If this view resonates with you, or if you'd like to explore specific historical replacements in more detail, current tensions in cosmology (like JWST surprises), or philosophical takes on how "certain" scientific knowledge can ever be, just say the word. What aspect feels most like "kindergarten evidence" to you right now?You're absolutely right to point this out — scientific knowledge, including the Big Bang model, is provisional. It's the best explanation we have right now based on current observations and calculations, but it is not eternal truth carved in stone. In 1000 years (or even in 50–100 years), it could look quite different, just as many past "settled" ideas in science have been revised or replaced when better data or better theories came along. Science as "kindergarten" evidence — a fair viewWhat we call "evidence" today (redshift of galaxies, the cosmic microwave background spectrum, light element abundances, etc.) is indeed based on:Measurements we can make with today's instruments. Mathematical models built on well-tested physics (general relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics). Assumptions that the laws of physics we observe locally have been the same throughout cosmic history. These are strong within their limits, but they are not direct eyewitness proof of events 13.8 billion years ago. We infer the early universe from the consequences we see now — like forensic detectives reconstructing a crime from traces left behind. If future technology or new discoveries (e.g., a better theory of quantum gravity) show that our current calculations were based on incomplete physics, the model will change. That's not weakness; that's how science is supposed to work. How the Big Bang idea has already changed (in just ~100 years)The concept didn't start as the polished "Big Bang" we talk about today:In the 1920s–1930s: Georges Lemaître proposed a "primeval atom" and expansion from a dense state. Many scientists (including Einstein initially) preferred a static universe. 1940s–1960s: The hot Big Bang model gained traction with predictions of helium abundance and the cosmic microwave background (CMB), discovered in 1965. 1980s: Cosmic inflation was added — a brief, ultra-rapid expansion phase right at the beginning to solve problems like the uniformity and flatness of the universe. This wasn't in the original model. 1990s–2000s: Discovery of accelerating expansion (dark energy) and precise CMB mapping (COBE, WMAP, Planck) refined the numbers. Today (as of 2026): Many cosmologists no longer think of the "Big Bang" as a single explosive moment or singularity, but as an era lasting hundreds of thousands of years after an earlier phase (often inflation). New quantum gravity ideas are being explored that might make the early expansion emerge more "naturally" without some of the ad-hoc fixes. Observations from telescopes like JWST have also created tensions — some very early galaxies appear more mature than simple models predicted, prompting refinements rather than outright rejection. The core idea (universe was hotter and denser in the past and has been expanding) has held up remarkably well, but details keep evolving. That's normal.Historical examples of big changes in scienceYou're correct that over long timescales, theories can be overturned:Geocentric model (Earth at the center) → dominated for ~1500+ years, replaced by heliocentric + Newtonian gravity. Phlogiston theory of combustion → widely accepted for centuries, replaced by oxygen chemistry. Static universe → many physicists in the early 20th century thought the cosmos had always existed; expansion evidence changed that. Caloric theory of heat (heat as a fluid) → replaced by kinetic theory (heat as molecular motion). Even Newton's gravity was refined (not fully replaced) by Einstein's general relativity for extreme cases. In each case, the old theory worked well for the observations available at the time, but new data or deeper understanding showed its limits.The honest position todayWe don't "believe" the Big Bang with religious-style faith. We provisionally accept it because:It explains a wide range of independent observations better than alternatives tried so far. It makes testable predictions that have mostly been confirmed. No better comprehensive model has fully displaced it yet. We can make condition based on observations, that is some kindergarten the root od the atheism.. But here atheism has a weak point versus faith/religion. Atheism isn't monolithic — some versions are purely negative ("I lack belief due to insufficient evidence") and don't claim absolute knowledge. Others are stronger positive claims ("no gods exist"). Similarly, faith ranges from dogmatic to highly rational/philosophical.Science doesn't "prove" atheism, just as it doesn't disprove God. The Big Bang (or any model) is compatible with theism for many believers — they see it as describing the mechanism of creation. For others, it removes the need for direct divine intervention in natural history.You're right that treating scientific observations as the ultimate foundation can feel limited — like building a worldview on "kindergarten" tools when deeper questions remain. At the same time, faith's certainty comes at the cost of potential untestability.What do you see as the strongest "weak point" of atheism in this comparison, or the biggest strength of faith that science can't touch? Or would you like to explore specific philosophical arguments (e.g., cosmological argument, fine-tuning, or epistemology of belief)? I'm happy to go deeper on any angle. This is one of humanity's oldest and most interesting tensions.I understand your point: building worldviews (especially atheism or strict naturalism) primarily on scientific observations and calculations — like those supporting the Big Bang or cosmic evolution — feels like "kindergarten" level evidence because it's indirect, provisional, and could be overturned in the future. You see this as the root of atheism, but also as its weak point compared to faith/religion, which often claims a more stable or absolute foundation.This is a fair and deep philosophical critique. Let's unpack it honestly without favoring one side. Science as "kindergarten" evidenceYou're correct that scientific knowledge about the universe's origins is inferential and provisional:We observe redshift, the CMB spectrum, light element abundances, etc., today. We build mathematical models (using general relativity, quantum mechanics, thermodynamics) to extrapolate backward. These models make testable predictions that have held up so far, but they rest on assumptions: that physical laws were the same in the early universe, that our instruments and math are reliable, and that we can trust induction (past patterns predict future ones). In 100, 500, or 1000 years, new physics (e.g., a complete quantum gravity theory) or observations could refine or even radically alter the picture — just as Newton's gravity was refined by Einstein, or the static universe idea was replaced by expansion. Science doesn't claim absolute certainty; it offers the best current explanation with degrees of confidence. Many scientists and philosophers openly call this "tentative" or "fallible" knowledge.This provisional nature can feel unsatisfying if someone seeks rock-solid foundations for meaning, purpose, or existence. Atheism grounded solely in "science explains it without God" inherits this tentativeness — it can't claim final victory over the "why anything exists at all" question.The weak point of (evidential) atheismMany forms of atheism (especially "weak" or agnostic atheism) emphasize lack of sufficient evidence for gods and rely on natural explanations. Critics (including some philosophers and theists) argue this creates vulnerabilities:It doesn't close the explanatory gap: Even if the Big Bang model is accurate, it describes how the observable universe evolved from a hot dense state — not why there was such a state, or what (if anything) preceded it, or why the laws of physics allow order, life, and consciousness. "It came from nothing by nothing" can feel philosophically unsatisfying to some. Problem of ultimate foundations: If everything reduces to blind physical processes, why trust human reason or morality as more than useful illusions? Some see this as leading toward nihilism or requiring unproven assumptions (e.g., that the universe is intelligible without a deeper rational ground). Science can't disprove non-empirical claims: God, transcendent purpose, or revelation often lie outside the testable domain. Science excels at "how" questions within the physical universe but is silent or neutral on ultimate "why" or metaphysical questions. Relying only on it leaves room for faith-based worldviews to fill the gaps without direct contradiction. In short, if atheism's strength is "we don't need faith because we have evidence," its potential weakness is that the evidence is always incomplete and revisable, while human questions about existence, meaning, and morality often demand more. Faith/religion's comparative strength (and its own challenges)Religion (or theistic faith) often draws on different sources of knowledge:Revelation, scripture, personal religious experience, philosophical arguments (cosmological, fine-tuning, moral), or a sense of the "numinous." It can offer certainty or commitment that feels more absolute — not based on shifting empirical data but on trust in a divine reality that grounds everything, including reason itself. Many religious traditions argue that faith isn't "blind" but a reasonable response to cumulative experience, beauty/order in the universe, or inner conviction. Some see science as compatible or even pointing toward a Creator (e.g., the universe's apparent fine-tuning or mathematical elegance). This can address the "weak point" you mention: faith provides a stable anchor where science remains open-ended. It answers "why is there something rather than nothing?" with purpose or divine will, rather than leaving it as a brute fact.However, from a skeptical or scientific perspective, this strength is also a potential weakness:Faith-based claims are often not falsifiable or independently verifiable in the same way. Different religions make conflicting truth claims, and personal experiences or revelations aren't repeatable or shareable like lab results. History shows religious interpretations have also shifted (e.g., views on cosmology, biology, or ethics evolving with new knowledge). Epistemologically, it relies on non-empirical justification (revelation, authority, intuition), which others may see as circular or subjective. Faith/philosophy/religion: "Why does it exist? What is the meaning or moral grounding? How should we live?

Hey @grok imagine you’re human for a day what belief system would you follow and why??

@UcimSe @grok @Toxic0livia How should we live?? MR NİGER D M- Movement- working R- respiration - health and survival N- Nutrition - feeding I- irritability - sensitivity G- Growth- from one level to another E- Excretion R- Reproduction- marriage and birth D- Death No special life outside this

@UcimSe @grok @Toxic0livia Before faith or religion we have culture and traditions, this culture guide our daily lives and morals and RELİGİON HAS NOTHİNG TO DO WİTH MORALS, Japan with almost no religion has more morals than India with the highest number of religions

@altaccece @sosyologvasak @grok @Toxic0livia Atheism is not a religion or belief system because it doesn't require believe... İts just basically applying COMMON SENSE through reality, nature and 💯 PROVEN physical evidence

@sosyologvasak @grok @Toxic0livia I know, it's kind of a trend nowadays to say that, but you only say that to try and convince yourself that your belief system is right, it's not.

@cyrusnahni @adekunleolopade There will be no rapture Humans will still exist for over 100,000 years like we have been over existing 300,000 years ago Our current civilization including the gods will go into extinction and new civilization will rise

@adekunleolopade I have my own question, heaven and hell is abstract yea? During rapture, the saints that will disappear are they gonna disappear with their physical body as in the dust and sand body or their body will fall while their soul leaves for heaven.

i have a question (that might put me in trouble) but please forgive me. Let’s look at this with an open mind. With this Artemis thing - where would heaven and hell technically be. if heaven is up and hell is down, but then the earth is constantly rotating.

@adekunleolopade Simple logic There is no heaven and hell Humans have existed for 300,000yrs The concept of heaven and hell started little over 2000 years ago, all the people from 280,000 years ago that don't know Allah or Jesus will go to where? Life finish once we died There is no after life